Search

Aims: This manuscript aims to provide a description of an evidence‐informed Science of Care practice‐based research and innovation framework that may serve as a guiding framework to generate new discoveries and knowledge around fundamental care in a more integrated manner. Background: New ways of thinking about models of care and implementation strategies in transdisciplinary teams are required to accelerate inquiry and embed new knowledge and innovation into practice settings. A new way of thinking starts with an explicit articulation and commitment to the core business of the healthcare industry which is to provide quality fundamental care. Design: This discursive paper delineates an iteratively derived Science of Care research and innovation framework (Science of Care Framework) that draws from a targeted literature review. Method: The Science of Care Framework integrates caring science with safety and symptom sciences with implementation, improvement, innovation and team sciences. Each science dimension is described in terms of seminal and evolving evidence and theoretical explanations, focusing on how these disciplines can support fundamental care. Conclusions: The Science of Care Framework can serve as a catalyst to guide future efforts to propel new knowledge and discoveries around fundamental care and how best to implement it into clinical practice through a transdisciplinary lens. Impact on nursing science, practice, or disciplinary knowledge: The Science of Care Framework can accelerate nursing discipline‐specific knowledge generation alongside inter and transdisciplinary insights. The novel articulation of the Science of Care Framework can be used to guide further inquiries that are co‐designed, and led, by nurses into integrated models of care and innovations in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to set the foundation for subsequent empirical studies of the "Implementing models of primary care for older adults with complex needs" project, by introducing and presenting a brief descriptive comparison of the nine case studies in Quebec, Ontario and New Zealand. Each case is described based on key dimensions of Rainbow model of Valentijn and al (2013) with a focus on "meso level" integration. Meso level integration is represented by organizational and professional elements of the Rainbow Model, which are of particular interest in our nine case studies. Each of the three cases in Ontario and three in New Zealand are different and described separately. In Quebec, a local health services network model is presented across the three cases studied with variations in the way it is implemented. The three cases selected in the three jurisdictions under study were not chosen to be representative of wider practice within each country, but rather represent interesting and unique models of communitybased primary healthcare integration. Similarities and variations in the integrated care models, context and dimension of integration offer insights regarding core component of integration of services, offering a foundational understanding of the cases on which future analysis will be based. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Many studies have investigated the process of healthcare implementation to understand better how to bridge gaps between recommended practice, the needs and demands of healthcare consumers, and what they actually receive. However, in the implementation of integrated communitybased and integrated health care, it is still not well known which approaches work best. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and metanarrative synthesis of literature on implementation frameworks, theories and models in support of a research programme investigating CBPHC for older adults with chronic health problems. Results: Thirty-five reviews met our inclusion criteria and were appraised, summarised, and synthesised. Five metanarratives emerged 1) theoretical constructs; 2) multiple influencing factors; 3) development of new frameworks; 4) application of existing frameworks; and 5) effectiveness of interventions within frameworks/models. Four themes were generated that exposed the contradictions and synergies among the metanarratives. Person-centred care is fundamental to integrated CBPHC at all levels in the health care delivery system, yet many implementation theories and frameworks neglect this cornerstone. Discussion: The research identified perspectives central to integrated CBPHC that were missing in the literature. Context played a key role in determining success and in how consumers and their families, providers, organisations and policy-makers stay connected to implementing the best care possible. Conclusions: All phases of implementation of a new model of CBPHC call for collaborative partnerships with all stakeholders, the most important being the person receiving care in terms of what matters most to them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health systems globally are still struggling to roll out system-wide models of integrated health and social care. While pockets of innovation exist they often remain stuck within single jurisdictions, or, worse yet, never expand beyond the pilot phase. Researchers, providers, managers and health system leaders could learn from the experiences of other countries facing similar challenges, however lack a standardized comparative method to take findings from different contexts and relate them back to their own. Aims and Objectives: This workshop will walk participants through one approach to conducting comparative program summaries originally developed by the Commonwealth Fund in the United States and applied to cases of integrated care across three different countries. The template captures key components of integrate care including client access and eligibility, care coordination and transition processes, information management systems, self-management and caregiver supports, program maturity, measures of success, and evaluation. Audience members will learn about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges of adopting this type of comparative work, drawing on the examples presented by a panel of international researchers who have applied the Commonwealth Fund template on integrated care to their original studies SUSTAIN (Netherlands) and iCOACH (Canada, New Zealand). Participants will have the opportunity to go through the exercise of adopting the approach. Participants will be broken up into small groups and given short-form templates that can be applied to their own models of integrated care. Groups will go through the exercise and engage in a facilitated discussion on: 1) whether it can be applied to their contexts; 2) what they can learn from this type of exercise to improve and build on existing or new models; and 3) what is missing and what are the challenges when we try to learn across borders. Target audience: This workshop will be of interest to providers, manager and decision-makers seeking to learn from other examples as they adopt, grow, or spread their own models of care. Researchers will also benefit from this workshop as we tackle the methodological and conceptual challenges of complex comparative case analysis, using a case summary templates as a starting point. Learnings/Take away: Participants of this workshop will learn: How to apply a standardized template to analyze their local contexts. Methods to share knowledge across international borders as a means to further their programs and models of care The values and challenges in engaging in cross-national comparative case analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Digital health solutions, in particular information communication technologies, often experience implementation failures leading to slower adoption than expected. This implementation challenge has spurred the development of frameworks to help navigate this uncertain and messy process. These frameworks point to environmental, organizational, individual, and technological factors that can drive or hinder implementation, with some in the field suggesting that perceived value may play a pivotal role. However, the concept of value can have varying meanings and be challenging to operationalize as a means to support implementation. Attending to philosophical and psychological meaningfulness for users and organizations in which technologies are adopted may offer a useful lens, by linking perceived value to individual behavior changes often required as part of implementing digital health technologies. Lessons learned from developing, evaluating, and implementing the electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) tool demonstrate how qualitative methods can be used to uncover meaningfulness. By drawing from this example and other similar studies, this viewpoint offers suggestions on how future inquiry could deepen an understanding of meaningful innovation to help drive the implementation of digital health technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studying implementation of integrated models of community-based primary health care takes a "whole systems" multidisciplinary approach to capture micro (patient/carer and provider), meso (organization) and macro (system/policy) factors. In new research studying the implementation of these integrated models intended to improve care for older adults with complex care needs, our project team adopted four theoretical perspectives to capture micro, meso and macro factors influencing implementation. Problem Statement: Four theoretical and disciplinary perspectives were adopted to guide data collection and analysis. These perspectives were guided by 1) Wagner's Chronic Care Model as related to Ham's 10 Dimensions of High Performing Chronic Care Systems addressing patient/caregiver and provider level perspectives; 2) the Organizational Context and Capabilities for Integrating Care framework capturing organizational and provider level perspectives; and 3) the Health Policy Monitor survey methodology covering system and policy level perspectives. The different perspectives capture a wide breadth of concepts; however there is also significant conceptual overlap across those frameworks. The nature of this overlap requires clarification in order to: 1) ensure efficient data collection at the case sites; and 2) guide inter-disciplinary data analysis. Theory/Methods: Concept mapping was used to identify connections between the concepts across perspectives. Novak and Canas (2007)'s methods and software CmapTools were used to first generate a descriptive map. We explored the conceptual links of the map using data from 1 case studies in Ontario collected as part of the iCOACH project. Results: The concept map reveals many links across policy/system, organizational, provider and patient/carer theoretical perspectives. Examination of the overlap between concepts related to care coordination reveals different meanings, approaches, and implementations, depending on from which perspective you start. For instance, from a policy perspective care coordination is related to how services are delivered and delivery arrangements, the organizational perspective highlights inter-organizational linkages and collaboration, the provider perspective focuses on teamwork and community linkages, and the patient and carer perspective emphasizes the experience of coordinated care. Conclusions: Our analysis reveals that while concepts from different theoretical perspectives and disciplines may be similar in definition, each perspective offers a different meaning, value and driver associated with similar concepts. This analysis highlights the importance of developing a "whole system" perspective, and how concept mapping can be used to guide this approach to data collection and analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The implementation of integrated care involves efforts to engage health care providers in a vision of health care delivery that includes coordination and collaboration for the care of individual clients. The processes by which health care providers engage with an organizational vision for integrated care, and the challenges associated with encouraging health care providers to adopt integrated practices remain under-explored in the research literature. Theory/Method: This paper reports initial findings on health care provider engagement in efforts to implement integrated community-based primary health care from the iCOACH project (Integrated Care for Older Adults with Complex Health Needs). The research project draws on in-depth international case studies of organizations in 3 jurisdictions: Ontario, Canada (n=3), Quebec, Canada (n=3), and New Zealand (n=3). Drawing on the theory of institutional logics, this report will include data from health care provider and organizational management/leadership interviews across all 9 case studies. Results: Preliminary findings suggest that health care providers respond to organizations' visions for integrated care differently depending on whether they feel supported to practice in more integrated ways. Even within a single organization, health care providers may enact or resist the organizational vision (and thus institutional logic) toward integrated care depending on the extent to which they feel engaged. Managerial approaches were found to be of central importance, helping to determine the extent to which health care providers adopted more integrated practices in the provision of everyday care delivery. These findings were illustrated across case studies in each of the 3 study jurisdictions. Discussion: Although these qualitative data only represent preliminary analysis, they point to the importance of managerial engagement strategies to promote health care provider buy-in to an organizational vision of more integrated care. These early findings suggest that managers within health care organizations can act as either barriers or facilitators to implementing integrated care depending on whether and how the interact and work with health care providers. Conclusions: Managerial approaches to the engagement of health care providers are of primary importance for the implementation of integrated care. Further analysis of the iCOACH study data will provide more detailed examination of which managerial approaches promote integrated health care provider practice, and those which act as barriers to integrated primary health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: An abundance of studies have investigated the many influences on the implementation of healthcare aimed at bridging the gap between recommended practice, what healthcare consumers want and need, and what they actually receive. Yet it is still not well known which implementation approaches work best in the use of knowledge, and the adoption and perpetuation of new ways of providing care in community-based settings. The metanarrative review will purposively inform implementation in the third phase of a programme of research, implementing integrated care for older adults with complex health needs (iCOACH) in New Zealand and Canada. Methods: This work reviewed what is known about implementation that may be suitable to guide the scaling up and evaluation phase of iCOACH. Metanarrative review methods were applied to systematic and narrative reviews of literature on implementation frameworks, theories and strategies. We synthesised heterogenous findings in a way that informs the practice of implementation. Results: Thirty-five systematic and narrative reviews met our inclusion criteria and were appraised, summarised, and qualitatively analysed. The various assumptions, worldviews and findings represented in the literature were subjected to high level analysis and interpretation that identified five metanarratives concerning the constructs, influencing factors, frameworks, and the effectiveness of interventions and strategies employed in implementation. Discussion: A wide range of people have a stake in how to implement what works best and matters most for older adults with chronic health care problems in various community-based settings, not least consumers themselves. We call for collaborative adaptation with stakeholders, most importantly the person receiving care and their family in the implementation of a new model. Conclusions and lessons learned: There is still no 'silver bullet' in implementation science in spite of abundant primary and secondary studies. People- and relationship-centred care is fundamental to integrated, community-based care at all levels in the broader health care delivery system. Yet many implementation theories and frameworks neglect these important considerations. All phases of implementation of a new model of care call for collaborative adaptation with stakeholders, the most important being the person receiving care in terms of what matters most to them. Limitations: While our search strategies were extensive we cannot guarantee that we located every systematic or narrative review on this topic. Suggestions for future research: Participatory research methods and realist evaluation approaches informed by this metanarrative review is required of the implementation of a new model of integrated, community-based care for older adults with chronic health problems to establish what has worked best, for whom and how. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]